Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T05CM02085
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/11/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/23/2005 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT:T05CM02085 7885 E. Speedway Blvd. Walgreen's Retail Site Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review 5/23/05 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. List the legal description of the subject property. Per Pima County Assessors Records, the site is comprised of two(2) separate parcels which must be combined by providing a copy of the recorded City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant. A copy of the City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant is attached to the yellow site plan card or may be obtained online at www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Lot_Combo_Declaration.pdf. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2) 2. Clearly indicate the location of the property line separating the two parcels on the site plan. 3. If it is decided to remove the property line separating the two parcels provide the legal description and recordation information. This may be required by structural reviewers for firewall issues. Please contact any of the structural reviewers at DSD for further information. 4. Provide a complete location map as required by DS2-02.2.1.4 and DS 2-05.2.2.1D. 5. Provide all lot dimensions and bearings. (DS 2-02.2.1.5) 6. Clearly indicate awnings projections from building and the required one ft.(1')setback from PAALs as per DS3-05.2.2.B.2. 7. Clearly indicate the height of the structure in compliance with LUC Sec. 3.2.3.2.A DD #28 max. height of 30' as measured from the design grade to the midpoint of the highest hipped roof as per LUC Sec.3.2.7.2.A. 8. Indicate the distance from back of existing or future curb to property lines at both Speedway and Pantano. 9. There is a conflict in floor area between the project data(14,469 s.f.) and the building on the site plan(14,550 s.f.). This changes the parking space calculations. Please clarify. 10. Provide temporary curbs or balards along the edge of paving at the west side of the property adjacent to the future developed property. 11. A handicap ramp is missing at the north west corner of the building connecting to the sidewalk along the east side of the building. 12. The side walk at the south side of the building in front of the handicap parking spaces must be physically separated from the vehicular use area with curbs, wheel stops, etc. as per DS 2-08.4.1.A. 13. The parking spaces facing Speedway and Pantano must be designed not to over hang into the street landscape border. DS2-06.3.3.E 14. Clearly indicate the widths of the PAALs at the loading zones and from the drive thru lane to the curb to the west. DS 3-05.2.1C.1 15. Indicate how the site will comply with DS3-05.2.1.C.1,2.a.,2.b,2.c,&2.d. Regarding drive thru lanes, width, length, stacking, not located in a PAAL, not interfering with loading zones, etc. 16. The Class 1 bicycle parking facilities as indicated on the site plan do not meet DS 2-09.2.2.A.,.1,.2,.3,.4, or .5. Provide a detail or clearly indicate how the site plan will meet these codes. 17. A clear space of four feet (4') is required for pedestrian access on the sidewalk at the east side of the building from the class 1 bicycle parking spaces indicated on the sidewalk . DS 2-0.9.3.2. Provide a detail or clearly indicate how the site plan will meet this code. 18. Indicate how the class 2 bicycle parking facilities will meet DS 2-09.6.1,.2 & .6. (space dimensions, aisle width, parking area delineation, not interfering with pedestrian access, etc.) Provide a detail or clearly indicate how the site plan will meet this code. 19. Provide the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation as per LUC Sec. 3.2.11.2.C.1. 20. Further comments may be forth coming based on the resubmitted plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5608 ext. 2000. |
| 05/25/2005 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT:T05CM02085 7885 E. Speedway Blvd. Walgreen's Retail Site Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review 5/23/05 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. List the legal description of the subject property. Per Pima County Assessors Records, the site is comprised of two(2) separate parcels which must be combined by providing a copy of the recorded City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant. A copy of the City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant is attached to the yellow site plan card or may be obtained online at www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Lot_Combo_Declaration.pdf. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2) 2. Clearly indicate the location of the property line separating the two parcels on the site plan. 3. If it is decided to remove the property line separating the two parcels provide the legal description and recordation information. This may be required by structural reviewers for firewall issues. Please contact any of the structural reviewers at DSD for further information. 4. Provide a complete location map as required by DS2-02.2.1.4 and DS 2-05.2.2.1D. 5. Provide all lot dimensions and bearings. (DS 2-02.2.1.5) 6. Clearly indicate awnings projections from building and the required one ft.(1')setback from PAALs as per DS3-05.2.2.B.2. 7. Clearly indicate the height of the structure in compliance with LUC Sec. 3.2.3.2.A DD #28 max. height of 30' as measured from the design grade to the midpoint of the highest hipped roof as per LUC Sec.3.2.7.2.A. 8. Indicate the distance from back of existing or future curb to property lines at both Speedway and Pantano. 9. There is a conflict in floor area between the project data(14,469 s.f.) and the building on the site plan(14,550 s.f.). This changes the parking space calculations. Please clarify. 10. Provide temporary curbs or balards along the edge of paving at the west side of the property adjacent to the future developed property. 11. A handicap ramp is missing at the north west corner of the building connecting to the sidewalk along the east side of the building. 12. The side walk at the south side of the building in front of the handicap parking spaces must be physically separated from the vehicular use area with curbs, wheel stops, etc. as per DS 2-08.4.1.A. 13. The parking spaces facing Speedway and Pantano must be designed not to over hang into the street landscape border. DS2-06.3.3.E 14. Clearly indicate the widths of the PAALs at the loading zones and from the drive thru lane to the curb to the west. DS 3-05.2.1C.1 15. Indicate how the site will comply with DS3-05.2.1.C.1,2.a.,2.b,2.c,&2.d. Regarding drive thru lanes, width, length, stacking, not located in a PAAL, not interfering with loading zones, etc. 16. The Class 1 bicycle parking facilities as indicated on the site plan do not meet DS 2-09.2.2.A.,.1,.2,.3,.4, or .5. Provide a detail or clearly indicate how the site plan will meet these codes. 17. A clear space of four feet (4') is required for pedestrian access on the sidewalk at the east side of the building from the class 1 bicycle parking spaces indicated on the sidewalk . DS 2-0.9.3.2. Provide a detail or clearly indicate how the site plan will meet this code. 18. Indicate how the class 2 bicycle parking facilities will meet DS 2-09.6.1,.2 & .6. (space dimensions, aisle width, parking area delineation, not interfering with pedestrian access, etc.) Provide a detail or clearly indicate how the site plan will meet this code. 19. Further comments may be forth coming based on the resubmitted plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5608 ext. 2000. |
| 05/25/2005 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Maneesh Dwivedi DATE: May 26, 2005 K & I Architechs 1850 N. Central Ave. Ste 200 Tucson, Arizona 85710 SUBJECT: 7885 E. Speedway Blvd. Site plan T05CM02085 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 26 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Report. The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP. 2. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3. 3. Please label lot dimensions and bearings per D.S. 2-02.2.1.5 4. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. The SVT's are not shown correctly, revise as necessary. 5. Fully dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. 6. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15. 7. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16. 8. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 9. Please show dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way per D.S. 2-02.2.1.19. 10. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 11. Please provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. 12. Show Site plan number on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 13. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. 14. Placement of fill in excess of 2' above existing grade at any location in the outer 100' of the developing site is not allowed and/or shall meet the requirements per D.S. 11-01. Please address. 15. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 16. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L. or call out the percentage of slopes. Call out the GB at the D/W, if applicable. 17. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 18. List the consulting engineer and the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information. 19. A floodplain use permit is required. 20. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. The FFE for the building is excessively high. The proposed building is over 350 feet away from the high WSEL. Why is the building proposed to be so high? Adjust building or give justification for elevating building so high. 3. Sec TCC Sec. 26-5.2. (4), development in the floodway fringe "may not unnecessarily alter riparian habitats of watercourse and adjacent bank areas". The parcel is designated as Critical and Sensitive Biological Community, (Shaw 1986) & is designated by Pima County as Hydroriparian or Mesoriparian and as an Important Riparian Area under the Conservation Lands System of the the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. A new DR may be necessary. 4. A mitigation plan is required for any disturbance in the 50' resource zone of the xeroraparian intermediate habitat. 5. Maintenance ramp is required for the ret./det. basin. Revise as required. 6. Per Sec TCC Sec. 26-5.2. (1), development "in the floodway fringe is required to conform to adopted city land use plans for the design of public and private development in the floodplain". A new DR may be necessary. 7. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and maintenance checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/7885 E. Speedway Blvd. site |
| 06/02/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Design parking spaces so that the front of a vehicle does not overhangs into the street landscape border per DS 2-06.3.3.E. Provide wheel stops for vehicle use area. 2. The screening requirement is in addition to the landscape requirements. The use of vegetation to satisfy the screen requirement is allowed only to provide for alternative treatment and is not in any way meant to imply that the vegetative screen can also be used to meet the landscape requirement per DS 2-06.3.7. Show graphically or with calculations how 30" screen is achieved along the street frontages. 3. Hedges and other vegetative screens shall not extend more than three (3) feet into the street landscape border. If, based on the growing characteristics of the type of plant used, the ultimate width of the vegetative screen will be greater than three (3) feet, the vegetative screen must be sufficiently set back from the landscape border to accommodate the wider growth per LUC 4. A 6' wall to screen loading zone from Pantano Rd. is required per LUC 3.7.2-I. 5. Remove Note #9 from Landscape Notes and Calculations. |
| 06/03/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/08/2005 | JMORALE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/08/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |